Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1648 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. D. Ratna Kumar

2023-12-28

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 17.08.2007 in C.C. No. 21 of 2001, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Special Judge” for short) whereunder the learned Special Judge exonerated the Accused Officer (“A.O.” for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (“P.C. Act” for short). 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, A.C.B. Visakhapatnam Range, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 3/RC-ACB/WLR/2000, alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet is as follows: PW-1/G. Srirama Murthy is the defacto-complainant, who worked as Special Teacher in Mandal Parishad Elementary School, Valugudem Village of Koyyuru Mandal from 17.08.1998 to the date of trap i.e. 22.04.2000. In the year 1999, PW-1 fell in sick due to Malaria fever, as such applied leave for the period 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999 and from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 and he stayed during the said leave period in the residence at Valugudem village. Except leave period, PW-1 was attending the School regularly. A.O. was the leave sanctioning authority and he informed PW-1 that he received complaint from the villagers about his absence to the duties and also informed that he would visit the village and cause necessary enquiry in the matter. PW-1 met the A.O. number of times and requested to make necessary enquiry and submit the report, as his salaries for the month of August, October, November, December, 1999 and January, February, 2000 were withhold. But the A.O. dodged the matter and finally on 16.02.2000 the A.O. visited Valugudem village and conducted enquiry with villagers and Vidya Committee Chairman. The said enquiry disclosed that except the leave period, PW-1 attended the duties regularly. A.O. submitted his enquiry report to the Mandal Development Officer on 17.02.2000 by recommending the salary for the leave period from 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999 and payment of salaries for the month of August, October, November and December, 1999 and January, February, 2000 except nine(9) days leave period in October, i.e. 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. A.O. submitted his enquiry report to the Mandal Development Officer on 17.02.2000 by recommending the salary for the leave period from 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999 and payment of salaries for the month of August, October, November and December, 1999 and January, February, 2000 except nine(9) days leave period in October, i.e. 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. PW-1 met the A.O. in the Office at Koyyuru and he was informed by the A.O. that the leave applied for nine days in the month of October, 1999 was not sanctioned. PW-1 requested A.O. to sanction the leave for the said period. There upon A.O. demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- to sanction the leave for the said period and threatened PW-1 that unless leave is granted for the said period, PW-1 services cannot be regularized. In the said circumstances, PW-1 reluctantly agreed to fulfill the demand of A.O. and requested two days time to pay the demanded amount. The A.O. suggested PW-1 to file separate leave application for nine days period in the month of October, 1999 and instructed to give the leave application along with the demanded amount of Rs.1,000/- on 22.04.2000 at his residence, Narsipatnam and assured that he will grant the leave after receipt of demanded amount. PW-1 prepared casual leave application for the said period and handed over the same along with arrears bill to the Education Clerk on 19.04.2000. PW-1 was not willing to pay the demanded amount, as such he filed written complaint, dated 21.04.2000 before the Dy. S.P. ACB, Visakhapatnam at 9-00 a.m. requesting to take necessary action. The Dy. S.P. asked PW-1 to come on the next day along with proposed bribe amount. Meanwhile he made antecedents enquiry and registered crime on 22.04.2000 and took up investigation. PW-1 appeared in the office of ACB, Visakhapatnam on 22.04.2000. On the same day, PW-1 along with raid party went to Narsipatnam at 7-45 a.m. and PW-1 paid the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- to A.O. and A.O. took the amount and kept in his shirt pocket, meanwhile the ACB raid party raided the house of A.O. and trapped A.O. along with tainted amount of Rs.1,000/-. The Dy. S.P. conducted chemical test on the hand fingers of A.O. and on the inner linings of shirt pocket of A.O. and the result of chemical examination was positive. The Dy. S.P. conducted chemical test on the hand fingers of A.O. and on the inner linings of shirt pocket of A.O. and the result of chemical examination was positive. A.O. was arrested and released on the personal bond on the spot and the required documents were seized by the Dy. S.P. After completing investigation, prosecution sanction order was obtained vide G.O.Ms. No. 26, dated 22.02.2001, issued by the Education Department. The investigation disclose that A.O. received Rs.1,000/- to show the official favour to grant nine days leave for the absent period in the month of October, 1999. 5. The learned Special Judge on consideration of the material took cognizance under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and issued summons to A.O. On appearance of A.O. and on compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and on compliance of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act against A.O. and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to establish the guilt against A.O., the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27, Ex.P.15(a), Ex.P.15(b) and Ex.P.15(c) and M.O.1 to M.O.8. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, A.O. was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in for which he denied the same. He filed his written statement and reported the defence evidence. 7. The substance of the contention of A.O. according to the written statement is as follows: There were news items in Vaartha and Andhra Jyothi Newspapers that PW-1 was not attending the duties in the School. PW-1 informed him that he was suffering from high fever due to Malaria, as such, he could not attend the School during 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999 and 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. There upon he asked PW-1 to submit Medical Certificate for the leave period 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 as there was complaint against PW-1. He conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer on 17.02.2000 recommending to pay the salary arrears of PW-1 including two leave periods in the month of August and October. The M.P.D.O. asked clarification from him and he complied the clarification. He conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer on 17.02.2000 recommending to pay the salary arrears of PW-1 including two leave periods in the month of August and October. The M.P.D.O. asked clarification from him and he complied the clarification. PW-1 drawn the due salaries on 23.03.2000 except for the period 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. On 19.04.2000, PW-1 came to his office and asked to sanction leave for the period 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. He demanded Medical Certificate for the relevant period. There upon PW-1 left the office and later he came to know that PW-1 submitted separate leave application for the period 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 and another casual leave application for 22.04.2000 and submitted arrears bill for leave period before the Education Clerks, Sri B. Satyanarayana. On 22.04.2000, PW-1 came to his house and repaid the loan amount borrowed from him and also gave the casual leave application for the period 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 and requested to sanction the leave. He asked PW-1 to wait at A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand for half an hour, so that he would come and join and both of them would proceed to the office of M.E.O. Koyyuru. He also assured that he will sanction the leave at the office as he was under the impression that PW-1 has got the Medical Certificate. There upon PW-1 left his house. Immediately the trap party came to the house, conducted Sodium Carbonate Solution test on his two hand fingers and the amount was seized. In fact, PW-1 repaid the borrowed loan amount on that day. He accepted the amount as repaid loan amount but not as illegal gratification. In furtherance of the defence, A.O. examined DW-1. 8. The learned Special Judge on considering the material available on record, found the A.O. not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the A.O. was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act and whether the prosecution proved valid sanction to prosecute A.O. for the charges leveled? Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the A.O. was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act and whether the prosecution proved valid sanction to prosecute A.O. for the charges leveled? (2) Whether the prosecution proved the allegations of demand for bribe prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap and that in pursuant thereof, the A.O. accepted the bribe amount from PW-1 and he obtained such an amount by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant? (3) Whether the judgment, dated 17.08.2007 in C.C. No. 21 of 2007 is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point No. 1: 10. Insofar as this point is concerned, the prosecution exhibited Ex.P.27 which shows that the sanctioning authority on due verification of the material available, accorded sanction to prosecute A.O. G.O.Ms. No. 26 was brought in evidence with consent as Ex.P.27. So, the prosecution proved that A.O. was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act and obtained a valid sanction to prosecute A.O. Point Nos. 2 and 3: 11. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant/State, would contend that the learned Special Judge believing the defence theory that A.O. got the amount towards repayment of hand loan obtained by PW-1 exonerated A.O. Apart from this, the learned Special Judge also made a finding that already A.O. recommended for the salary due to PW-1 for the period from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 basing on the evidence of PW-3 and Ex.P.15-enquiry report. But the fact remained is that the leave application to be attended by A.O. covering the above said period remained unattended and PW-1 was under an impression that A.O. had to process his leave application, paid the bribe amount to A.O. PW-1 supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1, the mediator and PW-4 the trap laying officer supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record properly, as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. PW-1, the mediator and PW-4 the trap laying officer supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record properly, as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri Murali Babu D. learned counsel appearing for the respondent/A.O. would contend that the conduct of PW-1 throughout was highly suspicious. He developed grouse against A.O. as A.O. was an enquiry officer. Though A.O. exonerated PW-1 of the allegations of non-attending duties, but he deliberately trapped A.O. by repaying the hand loan amount of Rs.1,000/-. In view of the evidence of PW-3, it is very clear that already A.O. recommended for salary to PW-1 during the absent period. It was also defence of A.O. that he asked PW-1 to produce medical certificate for nine days as he sought leave on medical grounds. Evidence is such that A.O. recommended to process the salary amount anticipating the compliance of defects, if any, in the leave application. The salary for the leave period was only around Rs.400/-. It was rather improbable that PW-1 was compelled to pay the bribe of Rs.1,000/- to get an amount of Rs.400/-. The defence placed evidence before the learned Special Judge that there was no question of any break in service and for the absent period probation can be extended. One of the allegations in the prosecution case is that A.O. demanded bribe from PW-1 for granting nine days period of leave on the ground that if it is not granted, there would be break in service. A.O. falsifies such a contention before the learned Special Judge that there was a possibility for extension of probation towards regularization. The findings of facts made by the learned Special Judge were on reasonable basis, as such, this Court cannot interfere with an order of acquittal as long as the findings were on reasonable basis. With the above said submissions, he would contend that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. As seen from the report lodged under Ex.P.25, though the allegations are omnibus but the main allegation is such that A.O. did not process the leave application covering the period from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 and he demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- so as to process the same. It also contained an allegation that unless the leave is granted, his services will not be regularized. 14. It also contained an allegation that unless the leave is granted, his services will not be regularized. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW-1, he supported the case of the prosecution undoubtedly. According to him, he applied for leave from 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999 as he was suffering with Malaria fever. He applied for leave from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 also. Ex.P.1 is the leave letter for the period from 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999. Ex.P.2 is the leave letter for the period from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. They are undated. He sent the leave letters after lapse of leave period. He was a Special Grade Teacher. He did not receive leave sanction information. His salary in August, 1999 was stopped. His salary for the month of October, 1999 was also stopped. After lapse of leave, he attended for duties. A.O. informed him that he received complaints against him (PW-1) from the villagers and Executive Committee Members about his irregular in duties. A.O. conducted some enquiry in this regard. On 17.02.2000 also he submitted his request letter to grant leave. A.O. demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- for which he expressed his inability. A.O. replied that he will not sanction leave and he will not recommend for regularization. So, he accepted to pay the amount. A.O. instructed him to bring the amount on 22.04.2000. On 19.04.2000 he presented another leave letter and arrears bill. Ex.P.4 is the leave letter undated. Ex.P.5 is the leave period bill. On 19.04.2000 he also submitted a letter in M.P.D.O. Office for leave on 22.04.2000. Ex.P.6 is the letter, dated 19.04.2000 for the leave of 22.04.2000. He presented Ex.P.7 report before ACB. He further supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the pre-trap events. With regard to the post-trap events, he deposed that on 22.04.2000 he proceeded to the house of A.O. and A.O. is there and A.O. asked him as to whether he brought the amount for which he replied positively and then he gave the amount to A.O. After receiving the amount, he picked up Ex.P.8 letter from his pocket and handed over to A.O. A.O. kept it in his hand bag and asked him to wait in RTC Bus Stand. Then he came out and relayed a pre-arranged signal. This is the substance of the evidence of PW-1. 15. Then he came out and relayed a pre-arranged signal. This is the substance of the evidence of PW-1. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW-2, the mediator and PW-4-the trap laying officer, they spoke of the events in pre- trap and post-trap. They testified that on receipt of pre-arranged signal, they rushed to A.O. and conducted chemical test which yielded positive result and they recovered the tainted amount from A.O. 16. The prosecution examined PW-3 regarding the procedural aspects with regard to the leave and his evidence is that PW-1 was working as Special Teacher at Valugudem of Koyyuru Mandal. A.O. was the casual leave granting authority over PW-1. A.O. made enquiry about the allegations against PW-1 and filed report before him. Ex.P.15(a) is the report, dated 17.02.2000. For the absent period in between 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999 no leave was granted. The remaining absent period is treated as duty period and A.O. recommended for payment of salary except the absent period from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. On receipt of report from A.O. he endorsed on Ex.P.15(a) to release the salary except absent period from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. Along with Ex.P.15(a), the A.O. annexed the statements of Educational Committee Members and villagers. They are Ex.P.15(b) and Ex.P.15(c). A.O. exonerated the charges against PW-1 in the report. 17. During cross examination he deposed that C.E.O. Zilla Parishad, addressed a letter to the M.P.D.O. asking to conduct enquiry against PW-1 which was forwarded to A.O. and on such instructions only, A.O. conducted enquiry and filed report. A.O. filed report on 17.02.2000 recommending to pay salary for the month of August, 1999; October, 1999; November, 1999; December, 1999 and January, 2000 and leave 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. So, according to the evidence of PW-3, A.O. did his job by recommending to pay the leave salary for the period of August, 1999; October, 1999; November, 1999; December, 1999 and January, 2000 and also during the leave period. What is evident from Ex.P.15(a) is such that A.O. recommended to pay the salary for August, 1999, October, 1999, November, 1999, December, 1999 and January, 2000. Though he did not disclose the period of leave from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999, but there was a recommendation to process the salary for the month of October, 1999. 18. What is evident from Ex.P.15(a) is such that A.O. recommended to pay the salary for August, 1999, October, 1999, November, 1999, December, 1999 and January, 2000. Though he did not disclose the period of leave from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999, but there was a recommendation to process the salary for the month of October, 1999. 18. The finding of the facts recorded by the learned Special Judge were that A.O. already duly recommended to process the leave salary for the absent period and that the leave application submitted by PW-1 under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 did not contain any dates and further he submitted leave applications deliberately even thereafter and including on the date of trap and PW-1 was not a reliable witness and A.O. had his possible explanation in the post-trap as to the manner in which he dealt with the tainted amount that is repayment of hand loan by PW-1 which he borrowed from A.O. previously. 19. It is well settled that in an appeal against an order of acquittal as long as the findings of facts recorded by the learned Special Judge are reasonable, this Court cannot interfere with the same. Now, the simple question that falls for consideration is as to whether the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are unreasonable so as to interfere with an order of acquittal. 20. It is to be noted that basically as evident from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, the leave applications of PW-1 covering the period from 15.08.1999 to 24.08.1999 and 16.10.1999 top 24.10.1999, were undated. There was no dispute whatsoever that those leave applications were submitted belatedly after expiry of the period of leave. As evident from Ex.P.15(a), A.O. exonerated PW-1 of the allegations by stating that except for the leave period, he was attending duties regularly. He mentioned the fact that for August, 1999 PW-1 applied for 10 days leave and for October, 1999 he applied for 9 days leave and that he was due for the salary of August, 1999, October, 1999; November, 1999; December, 1999 and January, 2000 and that the salary for the above period may be passed. A close perusal of Ex.P.15(a) means that A.O. also recommended for salary for the leave period. Though there was no order under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 granting leave, but on that ground itself the defence of A.O. cannot be disbelieved. A close perusal of Ex.P.15(a) means that A.O. also recommended for salary for the leave period. Though there was no order under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 granting leave, but on that ground itself the defence of A.O. cannot be disbelieved. In fact, it is quite interesting to note that according to the evidence available on record, though the leave application under Ex.P.2 for 9 days was pending, PW-1 presented Ex.P.4 another leave application covering the period from 16.10.1999 to 24.10.1999. According to PW-1, it was on the demand made by A.O. which is not tenable. The contention of the prosecution is that A.O. demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- so as to grant the leave on the pretext that if it is not granted, there would be a break in service or services of PW-1 would not be regularized. There is no dispute that as per the evidence available on record 9 days leave salary was only Rs.400/- and odd. It is rather improbable to assume that to get the leave salary of Rs.400/- and odd, PW-1 was compelled to pay the bribe of Rs.1,000/-. According to the allegations, PW-1 was demanded to pay Rs.1,000/- with a threatening that if leave is not granted, there would be a break in service. 21. It is to be noted that before the learned Special Judge, a G.O.Ms. No. 134, dated 10.06.1996 was placed on record which reveals that casual leave, special casual leave, earned leave, half pay leave and maternity leave is applicable to the Stipendiary teachers on par with the regular appointed teachers and if there is any gap in the probationary period, the probationary period will extend for the gap period. So, it does not mean that on account of non-sanctioning of leave, services will not be regularized. Looking into the same, the very allegations in Ex.P.15(a) report that unless bribe is paid, services will not be regularized shall stands collapsed. Having regard to the above, the learned Special Judge suspected the conduct of PW-1 that he presented a leave application afresh on the date of trap. PW-1 had no necessity to present another leave application covering the period on the date of trap unless it is with a deliberate intention. 22. Apart from this, there was no dispute that A.O. dealt with tainted amount. PW-1 had no necessity to present another leave application covering the period on the date of trap unless it is with a deliberate intention. 22. Apart from this, there was no dispute that A.O. dealt with tainted amount. A.O. set forth a defence in the post-trap before the D.S.P. that the amount which he received from PW-1 was towards repayment of hand loan. The defence of A.O. even before PW-1 is that as he was suffering with financial burden for non-drawing of salary, he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000/- from A.O. PW-1 denied such defence theory. The defence set forth by A.O. before the learned Special Judge was on the basis of his version in the post-trap proceedings. The prosecution did not examine a cited witness i.e. DW-1 and given up his examination. On the other hand, the A.O. got examined DW-1. DW-1 claimed to have witnessed the conversion between A.O. and PW-1 prior to the date of trap. His evidence is that he is the Junior Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Ch. N. Agraharam. During January, 1998 to April, 2001 he worked as Junior Assistant in the MEO Office, Koyyuru. His seat and MEO seat were in one room. On 19.04.2000 he was in the office when PW-1 visited the office. The distance between his seat and A.O. seat was five feet. PW-1 came with two leave applications. The A.O. instructed PW-1 to get medical certificate for the said leave period. A.O. also asked PW-1 about the borrowed amount from him as he encashed five months salary. PW-1 replied that he will repay the borrowed amount. He heard the conversation between A.O. and PW-1 from his seat. PW-1 handed over the pay bill and casual leave applications to him by leaving office. It was in between 2-00 p.m. to 3-00 p.m. 23. The prosecution impeached his testimony on the ground that he is deposing false to help A.O. At the outset, without furnishing any reason whatsoever, the prosecution could give up the examination of him as a prosecution witness. In such circumstances, nothing prevented A.O. to examine DW-1 in support of his defence. The facts and circumstances are such that the conduct of PW-1 was not above board. 24. In my considered view, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge were on reasonable basis. In such circumstances, nothing prevented A.O. to examine DW-1 in support of his defence. The facts and circumstances are such that the conduct of PW-1 was not above board. 24. In my considered view, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge were on reasonable basis. When there was no probability that the services of PW-1 will not be regularized even in the event of non-sanctioning of leave, the allegation that A.O. demanded PW-1 to pay bribe of Rs.1,000/- so that his services will be regularized cannot stands to any reason. A.O. was the officer, who conducted enquiry against PW-1 and he exonerated PW-1 of the charges. He recommended to process the salary of PW-1 for the absent period also. Though there was no literal order on the leave application of PW-1 covering the period, but even there was no such order about another leave spell of August, 1999. 25. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge disbelieving the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be unreasonable. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge rightly extended benefit of doubt to A.O. and rightly found him not guilty. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge. 26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 27. The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the judgment to the trial Court, on or before 05.01.2024. 28. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.